Eruvin 162

ומודים בשאר כל האדם שזכו לו מעותיו שאין מערבין לאדם אלא מדעתו

¹ HIS MONEY MAY ACQUIRE ONE"&gt; SINCE AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED ONLY WITH ONE'S CONSENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 4, second clause.');">²</span> R'JUDAH RULED: THIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED ONLY WITH ONES CONSENT.');">³</span> APPLIES ONLY TO 'ERUBS OF SABBATH LIMITS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may in certain conditions prove disadvantageous to the man for whom it is prepared. If he, for instance, desired to walk a distance of two thousand cubits In an easterly direction from this town and the 'erub was deposited on its western side, though he is thereby enabled to walk a longer distance in the latter direction, he IS deprived of his right to the two thousand cubits in the easterly direction.');">⁴</span>

אמר רבי יהודה במה דברים אמורים בעירובי תחומין אבל בעירובי חצירות מערבין לדעתו ושלא לדעתו לפי שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו:

BUT IN THE CASE OF 'ERUBS OF COURTYARDS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these are always advantageous to the tenants.');">⁵</span> ONE MAY BE PREPARED FOR A PERSON IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF IT OR NOT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. even without his consent.');">⁶</span> SINCE A BENEFIT MAY BE CONFERRED ON A MAN IN HIS ABSENCE BUT NO DISABILITY MAY BE IMPOSED ON HIM IN HIS ABSENCE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דר' אליעזר הא לא משך

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is R'Eliezer's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling in our Mishnah that the man who gave the ma'ah acquires his share in the 'erub.');">⁷</span> seeing that the man performed no meshikah? - R'Nahman citing Rabbah B'Abbuha replied: R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By ruling that possession may be acquired by means of money alone.');">⁸</span> treated this case as that of the 'four seasons of the year'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a similar relaxation of the laws of acquisition was allowed.');">⁹</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבהו עשאו ר"א כד' פרקים בשנה דתנן בד' פרקים אלו משחיטין את הטבח בעל כרחו אפילו שור שוה אלף דינר ואין ללוקח אלא דינר אחד כופין אותו לשחוט

For we learned: In the following four seasons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in Hul. 83a.');">¹⁰</span> a butcher is made to slaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To provide meat.');">¹¹</span> [a beast] of his own.

לפיכך אם מת מת ללוקח מת ללוקח הא לא משך אמר רב הונא בשמשך

Even though his ox was worth a thousand denars and the buyer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who paid the butcher on the eve of the day in question (cf. prev. n.) one denar.');">¹²</span> had in it a share that was worth only one denar the butcher may be compelled to slaughter. Hence if it died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was ritually slain.');">¹³</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא בשאר ימות השנה אינו כן לפיכך אם מת מת למוכר אמאי הא משך

the buyer must bear the loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it died for the buyer', sc. he cannot claim the refund of his denar.');">¹⁴</span> 'The buyer must bear the loss!' But why, seeing that he performed no meshikah? - R'Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Rab'.');">¹⁵</span> replied: This is a case where he did perform meshikah.

א"ר שמואל בר יצחק לעולם בשלא משך הכא במאי עסקינן בשזיכה לו על ידי אחר

If so, read the final clause: During the other days of the year the law is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the butcher cannot be compelled to slay his beast in order to keep his contract with the buyer. He may instead return to him his denar.');">¹⁶</span> Hence if it died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was ritually slain.');">¹³</span> the seller must bear the loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he must refund the denar to the buyer.');">¹⁷</span>

בד' פרקים אלו דזכות הוא לו זכין לו שלא בפניו בשאר ימות השנה דחוב הוא לו אין חבין לו אלא בפניו

But why, seeing that the buyer had performed meshikah? - R'Samuel B'Isaac<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS. M., inserts 'R'.');">¹⁸</span> replied: The fact is that we are here dealing with a case where the buyer performed no meshikah but the seller transferred possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a part of the ox to the value of a denar.');">¹⁹</span> to him through a third party.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the buyer did not appoint for the purpose.');">²⁰</span>

ורב אילא אמר ר' יוחנן בד' פרקים אלו העמידו חכמים דבריהן על דברי תורה דאמר רבי יוחנן דבר תורה מעות קונות

Hence it is that in these four seasons when it is beneficial to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer in the seasons mentioned, owing to the great demand for meat, is anxious to secure his supply.');">²¹</span> the acquisition is valid since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence, but during the other days of the year when it is to his disadvantage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The demand for meat is not great and it is more advantageous for him to have his ready denar.');">²²</span> the acquisition is ineffective, since a disability may be imposed on a man only in his presence; and R'Ela citing R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Judah (Rashal) .');">²³</span>

ומפני מה אמרו משיכה קונה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חיטיך בעלייה:

replied: In the case of these four seasons the Sages have based their rule on the law of the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Pentateuch.');">²⁴</span> for R'Johanan said: According to the words of the Torah, money acquires possession for the buyer; and the Sages ruled that it is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and wherefore did they say'.');">²⁵</span> meshikah that gives him possession as a precautionary measure against the possibility that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the sold goods, though still on the premises of the seller, to pass into legal possession of the buyer as soon as he paid the money.');">²⁶</span>

ומודים בשאר כל האדם כו': מאן שאר כל אדם אמר רב בעל הבית

the seller might tell the buyer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should a fire, for instance, break out where the goods were kept.');">²⁷</span> 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he would not take the trouble to save them from the fire or from any other accident. Hence the Rabbinic rule that it is meshikah that effects the transfer of possession. V. B.M. 47b. This it has been shown that in certain circumstances and for certain reasons the Sages adopted in practice the Pentateuchal law that money alone effects transfer of possession. Similarly in the case of 'erub, R. Eliezer's ruling, it may be explained, is clue to similar considerations.');">²⁸</span> THOUGH THEY AGREE THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER MEN etc. Who is meant by ALL OTHER? - Rab replied: A householder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he was given a ma'ah the act (since he himself deals neither in bread nor in wine) is not regarded as an order to purchase a share in the 'erub but as a mere indication to him to act as agent; and an agent may of course acquire possession for the man who appointed him.');">²⁹</span>

וכן אמר שמואל בעה"ב דאמר שמואל ל"ש אלא נחתום אבל בעה"ב קונה ואמר שמואל ל"ש אלא מעה אבל כלי קונה

Samuel also replied: A householder. For Samuel stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a ma'ah acquires no possession in all 'erub.');">³⁰</span> was learnt only in respect of a baker but a householder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he was given a ma'ah the act (since he himself deals neither in bread nor in wine) is not regarded as an order to purchase a share in the 'erub but as a mere indication to him to act as agent; and an agent may of course acquire possession for the man who appointed him.');">²⁹</span>

ואמר שמואל לא שנו אלא דאמר לו זכה לי אבל אמר ערב לי שליח שויה וקני:

does acquire possession. Samuel further stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a ma'ah acquires no possession in all 'erub.');">³⁰</span> was learnt only in respect of a ma'ah but all object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given in symbolic acquisition.');">³¹</span>

אמר רבי יהודה בד"א וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה ולא עוד אלא כל מקום ששנה רבי יהודה בעירובין הלכה כמותו

acquires possession. Samuel further stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a shopkeeper or a baker cannot acquire a share in an 'erub for a resident.');">³²</span> was learnt only in the case where the resident said to him, 'Acquire for me',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A form of instruction which, when addressed to a trader, is regarded as an order to purchase.');">³³</span>

אמר ליה רב חנא בגדתאה לרב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו במבוי שניטלו קורותיו או לחייו

but where he said 'Prepare an 'erub for me'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in any manner he might think fit.');">³⁴</span> he has thereby appointed him as his agent and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since an agent may be relied upon to carry out his mission in the proper manner (cf. supra 32a) .');">³⁵</span> he acquires, therefore, [his share].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the 'erub.');">³⁶</span>

אמר ליה בעירובין אמרתי לך ולא במחיצות

R'JUDAH RULED: THIS APPLIES ONLY etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R'Judah and, furthermore, wherever R'Judah taught a law concerning 'erubs the halachah is in agreement with him. Said R'Hana of Bagdad to R'Judah: Did Samuel say this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. MS.M. inserts this clause in the text.');">³⁷</span> even in respect of all alley whose cross-beam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. have the plural.');">³⁸</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי הלכה מכלל דפליגי והאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שאמר ר' יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתנו אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים

or side-post<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. have the plural.');">³⁸</span> has been removed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath. R. Judah ruled (infra 94a) that the use of the alley remains permitted for that Sabbath.');">³⁹</span> 'Concerning 'erubs',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the laws relating to acquisition of an 'erub.');">⁴⁰</span>

ולא פליגי והא אנן תנן נתוספו עליהן מוסיף ומזכה וצריך להודיע

the other replied, did I tell you; but not concerning partitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle underlying the permissibility of the use of an alley by means of cross-beam or side-post.');">⁴¹</span> [Since,] said R'Aha son of Raba to R'Ashi, [it has been said,] 'The halachah [is in agreement with R'Judah]' it must be implied that [the Rabbis] are at variance on the point,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had they held the same opinion there would have been no need to state that the halachah was in agreement with R. Judah.');">⁴²</span> but did not R'Joshua B'Levi in fact lay down that whenever R'Judah stated in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in our',');">⁴³</span>

התם בחצר שבין שני מבואות

a Mishnah, "When'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'when is this the case?'');">⁴⁴</span> or 'This applies',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in what', sc. 'in what case does this apply?' 'This applies only'.');">⁴⁵</span> his intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In thus commenting on a ruling of the Rabbis.');">⁴⁶</span>

והאמר רב שיזבי אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת חלוקין עליו חביריו על רבי יהודה

was only to introduce an explanation of the words of the Sages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 25a; and, since in our Mishnah he uses the expression 'THIS APPLIES ONLY', he is obviously of the same opinion as the Rabbis. What need then was there for Samuel to state that the halachah was in agreement with R. Judah?');">⁴⁷</span> - But do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis.');">⁴⁸</span> not differ?

אלא

Have we not in fact learnt: 'If the number of residents his increased he must add food and confer possession upon them, and they must be informed of the fact'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah supra 80b; while according to R. Judah an 'erub of courtyards (cf. our Mishnah) may be prepared for a person even without his consent!');">⁴⁹</span> - There it is a case of a courtyard between two alleys.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, unless the person concerned is duly informed of the facts, it cannot be known for certain with which of the two courtyards he desires to be associated in the 'erub.');">⁵⁰</span> But did not R'Shezbi state in the name of R'Hisda: 'This implies that R'Judah's colleagues differ from him'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 80b.');">⁵¹</span> - The other replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said to him' (so with marg. glos. according to some ed.) . Cur. edd., 'but'. The two readings are easily interchangeable in Heb. the k" t="" tkt="" former="" being="" represented="" by="" and="" the="" latter="" .');"="">⁵²</span>